The Big Bang

In an 80 minutes film with 18 interviewees, it's impossible for Toback to go more than skin deep with his philosophical inquiries. In fact, the content is one of the least interesting aspects of the film. More intriguing is how he managed to edit together 18 people's stories into one seamless dialogue, and how he played around with the lighting and composition of each of his subjects (many are cast in drastic shadows or glowing angelic hues).

I stumbled upon this film today on cable and was immediately drawn in by Tony Sirico's segments. He was about 45 when this was filmed and his hair looked nothing like the Wing Man; Paulie Walnuts, but rather it was slicked back ala Goodfellahs and his voice was so COMPLETELY different from Paulie I was amazed! So I was captivated right away.

He goes on to describe his thoughts on his mistakes, prison time etc, and what I liked was how candid and honest Sirico was with the interviewer. You could see he thought seriously about every question and answered all of them (even the tough ones) with a disarming demeanor that suggested deep regret (imo).

Like when the guy asks: "Would you kill someone for a million dollars?" and Sirico (instead of blurting out a quick "no") considers the question, almost looked as if he was gonna tell the guy, "sure, you kidding?" but instead kinda half smiles and finally says, "Nah..no...I don't need the money--so no I wouldn't do that." (laughs) Great stuff!

It was really well lit and the close-ups made Tony Sirico look young and very engaging. I don't wanna bring the guy a "Whitman's Sampler" or nothing, but the man did look cool, and he was a good sport about the whole affair as were many of the interviews. It was great to see where all those "Paulisms" come from. It just reinforces my great admiration for Sirico's style of acting--love to watch this guy do his thing—he's a hoot!

Check it out, you'll probably like it a lot. It's a hidden gem if you like documentaries.

This documentary has only one weakness; but it is a fatal weakness. The film is very predictable. The stock questions and answers one would imagine being given in this very basic philosophical exploration are all asked and answered. There are very few, if any, surprises. The producer hits the nail on the head when he asks: "who's going to pay to see a film like this?" And he s 100% right. The answer, of course, is very few people. Had it included Eastern Philosophy (China, India, Japan), it might have been a bit more interesting. But Western Philosophy? Been there, done that.

Director James Toback poses some heavy metaphysical questions to several armchair philosophers, including producer Joseph Kantner, to whom Toback is shown pitching his unusual idea for the film in a recurring sequence perhaps modeled as a parody of Louis Malle's 'My Dinner with André'. Kantner's skepticism was obviously staged, but elsewhere the replies are invariably candid, coy, pragmatic, imaginative, and sometimes just plain eccentric. Each of the ten interviews reveals a fully human (in other words, somewhat flawed) character, all of them more interesting when recounting earthy anecdotes about sex or death than when pondering the infinite cosmos. Profound questions don't always guarantee like-minded responses, but the film is valuable for the way it prompts viewers to ask themselves the same questions. In the end it may be nothing more than a self-conscious, self-absorbed novelty item, but if nothing else Toback at least offered an offbeat antidote to all the megabuck summer schlockbusters then in release.